> What part of this The fact that you can't see the offer without javascript is a flaw. But the offer is there. And everyone else told you about it so you kn

> What part of this The fact that you can't see the offer without javascript is a flaw. But the offer is there. And everyone else told you about it so you know, and have known for days. > Not having JavaScript is the default. Ojectively not true. > the point of making the offer is to justify the existence of the JavaScript That's a contorted way to phrase it that isn't right. The justification is the game and replays, whether or not you actually see the offer. > It is not possible that there is "a valid reason" to use JavaScript to make an offer to use JavaScript. That is pure chicken and egg. Ah, that's why you contorted it that way. Good news, the chicken and egg justification is not what's happening. > If it's configured to autoplay, and consists of someone droning over irrelevant imagery saying something that would have been better presented as plain text? Hell yes. Why wouldn't I? No, not those details you came up with. No autoplay. The imagery in the video is central to how they explain it. If someone did a text version it would be fundamentally a different explanation. Would you object just as hard, or accept it being a video? This mower thing would also lose something significant as pure text.